tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3088364677450011122..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Science Policy Forum: Framing ScienceLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19035813196175205912007-12-26T10:42:00.000-05:002007-12-26T10:42:00.000-05:00What science women's forum do you know?What science <A HREF="http://my.allwomenstalk.com/forum" REL="nofollow">women's forum</A> do you know?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22113846737874210452007-04-13T13:20:00.000-04:002007-04-13T13:20:00.000-04:00The reason why some of us reject Nisbet's idea of ...The reason why some of us reject Nisbet's idea of framing (with its focus on changing opinions rather than educating)is not because we don't think it would work.<BR/> <BR/>On the contrary. We know it works because we have seen it in action -- albeit in other contexts: political campaigns, product advertising and disinformation campaigns.<BR/><BR/>Some of us simply don't believe that such framing is appropriate for getting out the word on scientific issues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87192593378921725362007-04-11T13:59:00.000-04:002007-04-11T13:59:00.000-04:00"It is the culture in the US that has given us the..."It is the culture in the US that has given us the Bush presidency."<BR/><BR/>yeh, but let's not forget all the other stuff American "Opinion Culture" has given us:<BR/><BR/>American Idol,<BR/>Dom Imus,<BR/>Ann Coulter,<BR/>Britney Spears,<BR/>OJ Simpson,<BR/>Homer Simpson,<BR/>Beavis and Butthead,...<BR/>the list goes on an on. <BR/><BR/>There's not enough room on this server or on all the servers in the wold combined to list all the invaluable things American "Culture" has produced (ie, like those above).<BR/><BR/>So, it <I>can't</I> be as bad as you imply.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47331075679236170702007-04-11T11:55:00.000-04:002007-04-11T11:55:00.000-04:00What worries me the most about framing is the "win...What worries me the most about framing is the "win" now mentality that hinders the efforts of science in the future which is how Nisbet and Mooney are coming across in their follow-ups. <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/04/at_the_journal_science_a_nisbe.php#comments" REL="nofollow">Nisbet</A>:<BR/>"The "creation stewardship" frame activates attention and interest from Evangelicals on the issue of global warming, perhaps mobilizing some to seek out "science rich" information sources like the science coverage at a major newspaper or the executive summary of the IPCC report.<BR/><BR/>But for the great majority of Evangelicals, the fact that global warming can be perceived as a religious and moral concern--joining abortion, gay marriage, and poverty as issues they should care about--is good enough for them.<BR/><BR/>That's the power and influence of framing when it resonates with an individual's social identity. It plays on human nature by allowing a citizen to make up their minds in the absence of knowledge, and importantly, to articulate an opinion. It's definitely not the scientific or democratic ideal, but it's how things work in society."<BR/><BR/>I am sorry I have seen enough of a society in which people "make up their minds in the absence of knowledge, and importantly, to articulate an opinion." It is the culture in the US that has given us the Bush presidency.PonderingFoolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10767758746935185528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70689230259049065072007-04-10T14:53:00.000-04:002007-04-10T14:53:00.000-04:00"We're lucky that the legal argument is working fo..."We're lucky that the legal argument is working for us!"<BR/><BR/>The legal argument is working for us because our democracy is still working.<BR/><BR/>But, as Thomas Jefferson noted, a properly functioning democracy like ours depends on an educated populace -- <I>not</I> an opinionated populace.<BR/><BR/>Guess what that means?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80985450865323086382007-04-10T14:32:00.000-04:002007-04-10T14:32:00.000-04:00For those who do not wish to pay to access the abo...For those who do not wish to pay to access the above article, <A HREF="http://www.aaas.org/spp/wspa/nisbet.ppt" REL="nofollow">here's </A>a presentation that Nisbet has given on Framing science:<BR/>"Framing Science: understanding the Battle Over Public Opinion in Policy Debates"<BR/><BR/>I think the title says everything you need to know about what the author thinks the purpose of framing science is, but in just case not, here are his conclusions:<BR/><BR/>"Science literacy and public engagement models are limited, esp. when thinking about the “mass public.”<BR/><BR/>For strategic communication, there is nothing essentially unique or different about science from other political issues.<BR/><BR/>Battle for public opinion is about activating favorable predispositions and these predispositions are then used as powerful filtering devices by public.<BR/><BR/>Frames are the primary tools of activation. Miserly citizens use frames in combination with their value predispositions to cut down on information costs."<BR/><BR/>[end Nisbet quotes]<BR/><BR/>From the above, it is clear that Nesbit's idea of framing is more about "battling for public opinion" than it is about educating the public on science.<BR/><BR/>In both cases, opinions can be changed, of course, but in the latter case (education) people are making up their own minds.<BR/><BR/>I guess the fundamental question then becomes "Which outcome (changing opinions or educating) are scientists looking for?"<BR/><BR/>When it comes to public outreach, are scientists out to change opinions or are we out to do something else?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47136425310317435432007-04-10T14:14:00.000-04:002007-04-10T14:14:00.000-04:00Great post.I want to underscore your point regardi...Great post.<BR/><BR/>I want to underscore your point regarding science's response to creationists: It is very true that especially in the US the "counter argument" is not about the science, but about the legality, basing the argument on the Establishment Clause. We have not kept creationism out of the classroom because it is wrong, we've kept it out of the classroom because putting in the classroom is unconstitutional. <BR/><BR/>Thats actually a pretty sad state of things. We're lucky that the legal argument is working for us!Greg Ladenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03973115018538144984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45331054642703315442007-04-10T13:36:00.000-04:002007-04-10T13:36:00.000-04:00Have you read the new book? -- "The public is from...Have you read the new book? -- "The public is from Mars, Scientists are from Neptune."<BR/><BR/>Now, I know they use frames on Mars, because I have seen <A HREF="http://www.jimloy.com/astro/canals.htm" REL="nofollow">pictures of them.</A> But I wonder, do they use frames on Neptune as well?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52534671394438606712007-04-10T10:39:00.000-04:002007-04-10T10:39:00.000-04:00I was watching Manufacturing Consent last night an...I was watching <A HREF="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104810/" REL="nofollow">Manufacturing Consent</A> last night and there was one bit at the end that really reminded me of this debate. Here's a quote:<BR/><BR/><I>Noam Chomsky: Suppose I get on "Nightline". I'm given two minutes and I say Quaddifi is a terrorist or Khomeini is a murderer. Everyone just nods. On the other hand, suppose you say something that isn't just regurgitating conventional pieties. Suppose you say <BR/>[clips of Noam from other interviews] <BR/>Noam Chomsky: "The best political leaders are the ones that are lazy and corrupt", "Education is a system of imposed ignorance", "Fundamentally, there is no more morality in world affairs today then there was at the time of Genghis Khan" <BR/>[Back to speech] <BR/>Noam Chomsky: People will want to know what you mean. Why did you say that? You'd better have a lot of evidence. But you can't give evidence if you're stuck with the concision of "Nightline". You end up sounding like you're from Neptune.</I><BR/><BR/>If you're challenging the traditional views then a soundbite in the media isn't the way to do it. You need to be able to offer evidence because that's what people are going to be looking for when their views are challenged. I think scientists are in the same position in many of the public debates that are going on right now.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09429263099197981481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20093125614174394832007-04-10T08:55:00.000-04:002007-04-10T08:55:00.000-04:00It is interesting the way that criticism of/suppor...<I>It is interesting the way that criticism of/support for the article is breaking down -- along professional lines, with most of the scientists who have reviewed it critical and most of the non-scientists (journalists, policy wonks, etc) supportive.</I><BR/><BR/>The more I think about your conclusion the more I'm puzzled by it. You're right, of course, but lots of journalists pretend to be strictly neutral in their reporting. They claim to be just reporting facts. The idea of "framing" in order to promote an personal opinion should be unethical for most journalists. <BR/><BR/>Nesbit and Mooney seem to be writing for polemicists and politicians and not for journalists and science writers. Yes, there are "science writers" who are also polemicists—I am one—but I think N & M made a mistake by confusing the two. That's why they ended up insulting so many scientists.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14923759572533122932007-04-10T04:25:00.000-04:002007-04-10T04:25:00.000-04:00"All aspects of this debate are essential, includi..."All aspects of this debate are essential, including those of us who come right out and say what needs to be said."<BR/><BR/>Right! Nisbet and Mooney have a fuzzified concept of framing, and they have failed to put their message in the scientists frame. <BR/><BR/>They have a point in that more can be done, but they also narrow and conflict their own perspective to a nationalistic and pro-religious (ie anti-scientific) one.<BR/><BR/>Individual scientists, interest groups with scientists and science as a whole will use different methods of presentation. There is certainly a role for the provocative individuals who points out the hippo.<BR/><BR/>"I don't think there's anyone in Sweden who thinks that the religious right occupys the high ground."<BR/><BR/>This isn't simple IMHO. Sweden has had a generally more lazy adoption of religions since the adoption of lutheranism as intended broke the former economical and political power of the catholic church. But there are also areas with other evangelical churches and communities or groups of cults, now lately including US televangelists styles. <BR/><BR/>Both of these phenomena are mostly negatively seen by the large community it seems, probably since the groups mindset and actions are now rather foreign and can often be seen to be provocative or harmful. (Last seen as a community cult priest arranging murders of a series of wives. It turned out he and his female companion had severe psychological problems. Imagine that.) <BR/><BR/>But we have also the european phenomena of christdemocratic politicians. <BR/><BR/>The party has soaked up support mainly from older religious believers. It tries to make issues such as abortions, stem cell technology and homosexual marriages morally problematic, probably taking its cues from international fundamentalist views. Even if it has succeeded in making these views politically possible, the views and politics themselves have met with limited success.Torbjörn Larssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02022193326058378221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15035895803077363512007-04-09T20:12:00.000-04:002007-04-09T20:12:00.000-04:00Scott, there are two separate problems here.First....Scott, there are two separate problems here.<BR/><BR/>First. The fight <B>is</B> between science and religion whether you like it or not. If you ignore that then you've lost. Dawkins and others know this and it's why they've been effective in moving the debate out into the open. The idea is not to concede the high ground to the religious right. They don't occupy it in spite of the fact that they seem to have convinced you.<BR/><BR/>Second. How you carry on the fight between religion and science or, as I prefer to state it, rationalism and superstition, is a matter of tactics and personal preference. All aspects of this debate are essential, including those of us who come right out and say what needs to be said.<BR/><BR/>Now, in the fight between science and religion, I'm curious about the religious people who are "on my side." Can you identify some of those people to me? They must be really interesting people. :-)<BR/><BR/>We've said this dozens of times but it's worth repeating once more. In order to move public opinion you need to have voices on the extreme edge of opinion. You don't change hearts and minds by catering to the middle. It's the middle that needs to be moved. <BR/><BR/>What you're advocating is the same-old, same-old. It didn't work in the past and there's no evidence that it would work in the future. Yes, some people are going to be upset. It's like training a mule, you have to first hit them over the head to get their attention. <BR/><BR/>Look in recent months at how many times atheists have been on television or in the newspapers and newsmagazines. Why is that? Is it because of people like Dawkins and PZ Myers or is it because of people who don't ruffle any feathers and bend over backwards to avoid upsetting the religious moderates?<BR/> <BR/>I'm aiming for a society like we see in Western Europe or Scandinavia where close to a majority are non-believers and the middle has moved so far towards non-belief that the religious fundamentalists are totally isolated. I don't think there's anyone in Sweden who thinks that the religious right occupys the high ground.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49941082862765900242007-04-09T18:45:00.000-04:002007-04-09T18:45:00.000-04:00Let's think strategically for a minute. The fight ...<I>Let's think strategically for a minute. The fight is between religion and science.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, if you want to give The Enemy the high ground and just about guarantee that you'll lose, that's as good a way to (pardon the expression) frame the debate as I can think of. Forget "framing" - you've lost.<BR/><BR/>I'm a member of your lay audience, an atheist of 30+ years standing, and I think that you and Myers are out to lunch. From my perspective, here's what you seem determined to ignore - there are a great many people who would count themselves as religious who should be and could be on "your side." And yet you seem to be bending your efforts to annoying them to the maximum extent.<BR/><BR/>Example - "I'm having too much of a good time blowing raspberries at the godly." And that's a mild example. What the hell is the point? How people who write lucidly, engagingly, even elegantly about science can turn into screeching and ineffectual harpies as soon as religion is mentioned remains a mystery to me.<BR/><BR/>The people I'm talking about are not interested in responding to some atheist screeching at them and demanding "proof." They also have no patience with using "God said so" as an argument for public policy, by the way. There are a whole bunch of them, and this is even more broadly true in Canada than in the US. You're not going to convince the extreme fringe ... why waste your time yelling at them, painting all believers with the same brush, and annoying a lot of potential (or actual) allies in the middle?<BR/><BR/>A few months back, I pointed a few folks interested in learning more about science topics at two of these blogs as a start - Pharyngula and The Loom. The Loom? "Great stuff!" Pharyngula? "Why waste my time when every other append is a shrill antireligious screed? Do many scientists feel this way?"<BR/><BR/>The result? No danger that they'll get even get close to ID ... but they are so turned off by the tone from much of the "science" side that they may well just tune out the debate entirely. Most people have lives to live and lots of other things to think about. Science is simply not the focal point of most people's lives.<BR/><BR/>As I said, I'm just a member of your lay audience, and I'm sure neither of you want my advice. But here it is anyhow (you knew that was coming, didn't you?) - stick to science. As soon as you start babbling about religion, you do more harm than good. <BR/><BR/>There ... I feel better now. This had been building up for a while, but the tide of irrelevant and unhelpful crap from the science side just shows no signs of abating. Mind you, I wouldn't want you to think I felt strongly about it ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64794661670972004542007-04-09T18:00:00.000-04:002007-04-09T18:00:00.000-04:00It is interesting the way that criticism of/suppor...It is interesting the way that criticism of/support for the article is breaking down -- along professional lines, with most of the scientists who have reviewed it critical and most of the non-scientists (journalists, policy wonks, etc) supportive. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps you are right:<BR/>'This article sure would have benefited from peer review."<BR/><BR/>It sure is getting it now, isn't it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com